Apple co-founder Steve Jobs feels that Google "violated the alliance" it had with Apple when the search giant began producing cellphones that resemble the iPhone, according to a The New York Times piece that details the bitter rivalry between the two technology giants.

In an extensive piece profiling the battle between Apple and Google, dubbed by one person as "World War III" due to the level of animosity involved, multiple sources told the Times that Jobs feels betrayed by Google.

"We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business," Jobs was quoted as saying at a company meeting. "Make no mistake; Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won't let them."

The report also corroborated previous claims that Jobs used an expletive to dismiss Google's "don't be evil" mantra. The comment from the Apple co-founder reportedly earned "thunderous applause" from the company employees present at the meeting.

The Times noted that Jobs seems to be "unusually emotional" in the battle with Google. It said the company's lawsuit against HTC portrayed Apple as "an aggrieved victim finally standing up to the playground bully."

The report alleged that Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page considered Jobs a mentor, and were regular visitors to the company's Cupertino, Calif., campus. And while the relationship between Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt was said to be pleasant, the two were reportedly "never close friends."

Relations between the two companies allegedly turned sour when the Android mobile operating system was first introduced. A series of heated meetings between Apple and Google executives took place soon after.

"Many of those meetings turned confrontational, according to people familiar with the discussions, with Mr. Jobs often accusing Google of stealing iPhone features," the report said. "Google executives said that Androids features were based on longstanding ideas already circulating in the industry and that some Android prototypes predated the iPhone."

"At one particularly heated meeting in 2008 on Googles campus, Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch the popular iPhone feature that allows users to control their devices with flicks of their fingers he would sue. Two people briefed on the meeting described it as 'fierce' and 'heated.'"

It was the introduction of Android, the Chrome browser, and Google's plans to release its own netbook operating system that forced Schmidt off of Apple's board of directors last August. It was soon after that the two began competing for acquisitions.

While it was previously known that Apple talked with AdMob about a potential acquisition, the Times revealed more details on the talks:

"While Apple conducted due diligence on the deal, AdMob agreed to a 45-day 'no shop' provision, a routine clause that prevented the start-up from offering itself for sale to others, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. But after Apple inexplicably let 45 days pass without consummating its offer, Google pounced."

Google purchased AdMob for $750 million three days after the "no shop" provision with Apple expired. One executive told the Times that Google was willing to pay the premium just to keep the company away from Apple. Soon after the deal was struck, Apple responded by acquiring competing mobile ad firm Quattro Wireless.

The report even mentions the persistent rumors that Apple could partner with Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine and maps provider for the iPhone. As usual, Apple declined to comment on anything for the story.

"And it would present an unlikely sight: Steve Jobs and Apple, running from the arms of Eric Schmidt and Google, into the embrace of Steve Ballmer and Microsoft," the report concluded.

One of the things that I couldn't understand was why Apple and Google each shared BOD members. Seems like Google had more to gain than Apple. Apple has said that they aren't in the not in the search engine business.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

No but really. Apple should be happy that they are the landmark of new tech. for the future, not be so pissed off. They should yes get royalties for their inventions, but getting upset when some other company uses their ideas is dumb. Microsoft and Google will stop making their products for the Apple platform if Jobs continues this rampage.

What I don't want to see Apple do is squander it's war-chest just to one-up Google buying up random companies because it feels Google would be interested in them. I can certainly see Apple buying up companies that provide services that Apple currently relies on Google for... Maps and such and I think I remember Apple buying a map company not that long ago however Apple shouldn't even entertain the idea of rolling their own search engine I just don't see that being a successful venture.

Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it ebooks just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous datacenter.

I guess in the end only time will tell... but its mildly disappointing since I would have liked Apple and Google to continue on with collaborative relationship... Now it seems Apple might actually invite Microsoft to play in their reindeer games and I'm sorry but the only company that makes out in a Microsoft collaboration IS Microsoft. Tell me I'm wrong...

I feel that if Apple were going to embrace "Bing," then Google would have already vanished (at least visibly) from Safari in the 4.0.5 update. Hell hath no fury like Steve Jobs scorned, but the flames haven't yet reached that level.

Truth be told, Bing is still very much a mixed bag (typical of Microsoft); even those people I know who readily embraced it upon launch (all devout PC worshippers -- I mean, Windows users) soon found themselves second-guessing and turning back to Google for "better results." (I personally can't stand Bing. I _much_ prefer Google. Anyone who knows how to really search _well_ on Google can get excellent results pretty quickly.)

I'm sure that Apple is eagerly exploring viable alternatives (or the lack thereof), but the champ is still Google, no matter how "evil" they may be. Essentially, they wanted to jump into the hardware market and have done a rather clumsy but interesting job so far. Unfortunately for Jobs, they picked the same direction as Apple -- hmm, kinda sounds like an old Micro$oft trick!

And thus, we are poised for a real "Clash of the Titans." Talk about timing!

(Ballmer? Are you joking? The Baldin' Dancin' Monkey Boy is no match for his High Holy Steveness. Plus, Micro$oft still poses way too much competition for Apple.)

http://www.cuil.com infused with a $1 Billion from Apple and you'd see Apple quickly switching from Google and not missing a thing.

That looks interesting, but I can't tell (after a quick look at their website) how they make their money. If they are not gathering statistics on user searches, will advertisers be willing to pay Cuil?

Unless there was an agreement that the two would not compete but remain complementary partners, and thus, Apple showed Google (Brin, Schmidt, etc) their OS and multi-touch technologies, which Google copied while pretending to be partners.

Apple unveiled the iPhone in January 2007. According to CNN development of the iPhone took 30 months, so development started around May 2004. Google was involved in the development of the iPhone early on. But exactly when is unclear.

Google purchased Android in July 2005. So it's possible that Google bought Android while they are working on the iPhone.

This article also explains the mysterious absence of multitouch until recently on all US Android phones, and lines up nicely with the HTC lawsuit, which appeared shortly after multitouch became enabled on new Android phones.

This is very interesting information indeed, it's rare that we get a glimpse of currently unfolding corporate drama.

This sentence from the article is really poignant, "“Steve, my congratulations to you,” Mr. Schmidt told his corporate ally. “This product is going to be hot.” Mr. Jobs acknowledged the compliment with an ear-to-ear smile." I'm quite moved by this as I can imagine sincere emotions and heartbreak within this story.

If one of these companies is going to prevail in the end, I'd vote for Apple. Assuming one or the other doesn't score a big legal win which makes everything else essentially irrelevant, Apple's big advantage is competency and focus. Apple is constantly honing what it does best and carefully building on that competency. By comparison, Google is flapping around like a pigeon on LSD. They do one thing well, which gives them the freedom do whatever else they want, but they choose too many things to pursue, and so they do nearly all of them poorly.

Unless there was an agreement that the two would not compete but remain complementary partners, and thus, Apple showed Google (Brin, Schmidt, etc) their OS and multi-touch technologies, which Google copied while pretending to be partners.

When I think of the pre-iPhone Android mockups looking like a Blackberry, IMO, Schmidt was either extra shrewd or he didn't steal any of the iPhone ideas that had been in development for years.

edit: Picture supplied by sprockkets. Though it could have been a smaller pic or a hyperlink.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

One of the things that I couldn't understand was why Apple and Google each shared BOD members. Seems like Google had more to gain than Apple. Apple has said that they aren't in the not in the search engine business.

I'll tell you why.

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple it was almost dead. He gathered as many friends as possible and made connections throughout the industry. Having the weight of Google on the board was a message to Microsoft "a enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Eric Schmidt is just a opportunist, he saw Steve Job's poor health and thought Apple couldn't go on as well without him, so he jumped into Apple's pond hoping to be lead duck in his market.

Of course Steve survived and now Steve feels betrayed.

One question I have is, what the fsck in hell is the hypocrite environmentalist with a 28 room mansion and 3 30" monitors on his computer doing on the board of Apple anyhow?

You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...

I think that is not so relevant for two reasons:
[1] When Microsoft really burned Apple, Steve wasn't even at Apple. He had no control over that.
[2] The GUI look and feel lawsuit ultimately came down to a contractual, not intellectual property issue.

Unrelated:

One thing I find galling is the way it is setup as Google (open) vs Apple (closed).

But if Google "win", we'll be left with no competition on the software or services side, just the device side.
If Apple "win", we'll still be left with competition on the services side and undoubtably they'll still be competition on the hardware and software side as well.

Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it e-books just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous data center.

I suspect it's going to be Apple's processing "cloud" so all one has to do is carry around a nearly dumb lightweight terminal like a iPad Pro.

The NC data center is centrally located in the most populous region of the US instead of being located a bit more north where the summers are cooler, suggests some things over others.

I suspect Apple will also build a data center on the west coast too with the land they got.

If one of these companies is going to prevail in the end, I'd vote for Apple. Assuming one or the other doesn't score a big legal win which makes everything else essentially irrelevant, Apple's big advantage is competency and focus. Apple is constantly honing what it does best and carefully building on that competency. By comparison, Google is flapping around like a pigeon on LSD. They do one thing well, which gives them the freedom do whatever else they want, but they choose too many things to pursue, and so they do nearly all of them poorly.

This is also an almost perfect description of the difference between OS-X and Linux as well.

OS-X is a focussed, vertically integrated Unix powerhouse that's constantly being refined and extended. Linux is a free, poor man's copy of Unix, which allows gives it the "strength" of wide adoption and distribution, but it's an unfocussed grab-bag of constantly changing ideas that's useless to the average consumer in the end.

Another example is the difference between their respective online offerings. Google almost provides everything that MobileMe does, but each piece is separate from the rest, they don't always work together and it's hard to know what pieces you need. You also have to read a few books to know how to integrate all that stuff into your life. Apple provides less flexibility with MobileMe, but it's straightforward and you don't have to "manage" anything or know anything about how the Internet works.

Apple should be scared of Google.

If Google someday found a good way to sensibly offer their services to the average non-techie consumer, they could easily take over from all the other online service providers. Apple's services on the other hand look good and work well, but they just don't offer what people actually want. It seems to me that while it's possible for Google to somehow acquire design "chops" and to get better at PR and customer support, I don't think Apple will ever figure out the "social side" of the Internet.

I hope Apple cleans Google's clock on this. Android is a direct copy of the iPhone, with a few tweaks.

Apple does a truly usable software keyboard, and suddenly Google has one.
Apple does an app store, and then, oh look, Google introduces one (an utterly crappy one at that).
Apple does multitouch, and wow, here's Google with multitouch.
Apple introduces the iPad, and a few days later: tada, here's Google showing off its concept of a tablet.

Google's only saving grace is that it gives its OS away for free to a bunch of second-tier companies who can't do the heavy lifting themselves. But Google's not bringing anything truly new or revolutionary to the table, and they don't deserve to be recognized as leaders in this particular space...

What I don't want to see Apple do is squander it's war-chest just to one-up Google buying up random companies because it feels Google would be interested in them. I can certainly see Apple buying up companies that provide services that Apple currently relies on Google for... Maps and such and I think I remember Apple buying a map company not that long ago however Apple shouldn't even entertain the idea of rolling their own search engine I just don't see that being a successful venture.

Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it ebooks just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous datacenter.

I guess in the end only time will tell... but its mildly disappointing since I would have liked Apple and Google to continue on with collaborative relationship... Now it seems Apple might actually invite Microsoft to play in their reindeer games and I'm sorry but the only company that makes out in a Microsoft collaboration IS Microsoft. Tell me I'm wrong...

I doubt any of those acquisitions will be viewed as random when it comes time to connect the dots. Purchasing a mobile ad company makes perfect sense as it strengthens the ecosystem, especially as it facilitates monetising free apps and the advertising dollars stay in Apple's pot. I'm surprised that SJ hasn't entertained purchasing a company that is on the cutting edge of display technologye.g., Universal display; it's silly to ignore the importance of such an integral part of electronic devices.

And the data centre in NC? sheer brilliance. The iPad could well become the platform for truly mobile TV and who knows what else. That will require a server farm I'd imagine

I'm sure that Redmond is having wet dreams about becoming Apple's default search engine, but that would be a step backwards and SJ knows that. Once Google stole into apple's orchard with phones, apple may have started developing a search solution that will blows our socks off. Don't forget how everyone whinged about not having cut-and-paste on the iPhone. When Apple finally launched their version, it was better than what was out there. While Google is the cat's meow and as a medical lexicographer I use it all the time, I can think of a dozen ways to improve it. Surely apple can come up with several dozen. Just because something is a de facto standard doesn't mean that it can't be better. But apple won't cut the cord until the time is right.

How many years did it take to develop the iPad? the iPhone? Apple's forte has been to catch everyone off guard. Google may not know about apple's dive into search until the day it launches

You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...

That's right - Microsoft copied their computer operating system and now Google is copying their phone operating system. But it was less predictable than last time since (as Jobs said) Google was not even in the phone business originally, whereas Microsoft was always in the computer business.

Google might be the last word on search right now but Apple would do well to keep a close eye on developments further afield.

Wolfram Research is one company that I'd watch. Founder Steven Wolfram, a brilliant physicist and mathematician, is working hard on the concept of the semantic web. This concept is data driven (as exemplified in http://www.wolframalpha.com/) but by Wolfram's own admission has a long way to go. Apple might look for opportunities to work with Wolfram and possibilities for investment. Semantics might just be too difficult currently to apply to the type of search most people are interested in but if it works, might just provide a next-generational leap in capability.

"Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apples own App Store.

Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices."

I have an iPhone and I like it a lot, but I'm always for open standards instead of closed platforms. If not for that, we would still be all working on IBM mainframes and mini-computers.

Remember 90% of the game market ignores Apples existence. What is their motive to comply to the OS X market? Not really that much money in it.

1) MS and Google were writing programs for Macs when their marketshare was much, much lower. And since the market has grown the number of Mac sales and their installed base is more than sufficient to be worth of support.

2) Your changing up your argument now. Your previous suggestion made no mention of Macs or it being an issue of low Mac marketshare, but of MS and Google not writing any SW for Apple.

3) It's foolish to think that publicly traded companies will choose to make less money because of some argument. These company can work together and fight at the same time. They are multi-faceted and complex structures with a simple goal: make money.

4) Just the other week a popular gaming company announced they are porting their popular gaming engine to OS X. Maybe they'll use it for the iPhone OS, but it really doesn't matter as games aren't exactly a good argument against Mac development as a whole as Apple has never supported games well in HW and SW.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Well, if Apple really wants to take a bite out of Google's lunch, they should start to buy up every specialized search engine out there and ally with Bing. They have the money, but I don't think they really want to encroach on Google's turf to really bring the fight to the forefront.

Google doesn't do anything great except search, everything else is underbaked, never will innovate on Apple's level - another copycat. Premium quality will always trump freeware. The fact that Apple looks at Microsoft as an option for search shows that Apple has a special kind of confidence in its own ability to innovate. Remarkable!